Global Stability and the Least of These
Promoting America’s Interests
Opponents of funding for global development and aid argue that America cannot afford to be assisting other countries in a time of economic hardship. This argument is short-sighted and illogical. Funding programs that promote global stability and security are not contrary to America’s interests; they are the more economical and strategic policy for promoting America’s long term security and prosperity. Prominent and well respected leaders in America’s military and national security communities have come out in support of global development as the most effective way to protect our country. Lack of access to basic needs and services – including food, water, and shelter – is a threat to political stability all across the globe. We’ve seen this in the Sudan where the drying of Lake Chad contributed to the genocide in the Darfur region when water scarcity drove people into closer proximity to compete for fewer resources. Extreme poverty and natural disasters (which are 20 times more likely to impact the poor), cause the mass migration of refugees, destabilizing neighboring countries and creating ungoverned regions where terrorism can flourish. This is what happened in Somalia and Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Programs that combat the effects of a changing climate, global hunger, and poverty and spur development are proven to promote regional stability and global peace. They are also a fragment of the cost involved in responding to terrorist attacks, humanitarian crises, and natural disasters. Just as it makes no sense to pay $1,000 to save $100, it makes no sense to cut programs that are effective and save lives only to pay a far higher cost later for the consequence of our inaction. If we cut now, we will pay later.
The Least We Can Do for the Least of These
Providing assistance to the world’s poorest populations is not only in our economic and national security interests, it’s in our nation’s moral interest as well. While cuts to global development and aid will have a negligible impact on our deficit, they will have a huge impact on the people and regions counting on them. Malnutrition, which is drastically exacerbated by climate change, accounts for one-third of all deaths of children under the age of five. Slashing food assistance in half would literally cut in half the amount of food received by already starving refugees. And the problems are predicted to only get worse. Climate related disasters have more than doubled since the 1980s, and by 2020 more than 250 million people in Africa could face severe water shortages.
Now is not the time to abandon those with the greatest need. Defunding development and adaptation programs will make communities less able to respond to changes in their environments. Cutting funding for mosquito nets means that 70,000 children will die of malaria. America is a blessed nation and we have a responsibility to extend that blessing to the less fortunate. As Christians, we inherently understand that responsibility. The Church is called out into the world to serve the least and last. Investing in programs that will help the poor adapt and build stability is just the right thing to do.
Connie Mack Ignores America’s Faith and Military Leaders
See the print ad | Listen to the radio ad
Today over 12 million people could die in one of the worst famines in the history of the Horn of Africa. As is being demonstrated in the Horn, it is the world’s poorest populations that are disproportionately harmed by the effects of a changing climate, coming in the form of crop shortages, droughts, and flooding. And it is in regions that are most devastated by changing climates and food insecurity that political destabilization spreads, creating the conditions for extremism and terrorism to flourish.
Despite these realities, Congressman Connie Mack is pushing to slash funding for programs that help the poorest populations adapt to a changing climate and strengthen development and regional stability. In doing so, Rep. Mack has gone against the wisdom and leadership of America’s top national security experts and faith communities. So the question must be asked: Who do you trust more to look out for our nation’s national security and moral interests, the Department of Defense, CIA, State Department, Center for Naval Intelligence, the National Association of Evangelicals, Catholic Church, National Council of Churches, and Southern Baptist Climate Initiative . . . or Rep. Connie Mack?
